MODELING AND ANALYSIS OF THE AIR COOLED AMMONIA-WATER TRIPLE EFFECT CYCLE

Sam V. Shelton Assoc. Professor G.W.W. School of Mechanical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332 David Jacob Project Manager The Preston Phillips Partnership, Inc. 9000 Central Park West, Suite 100 Atlanta, Georgia 30328

Laura A. Schaefer Ph.D. Student G.W.W. School of Mechanical Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332

ABSTRACT Development of air-cooled absorption cycles appropriate for residential applications has been problematic. This study examines an ammonia-water triple effect cycle known as the kangaroo cycle, and investigates its limitations when used as an air-cooled space air conditioner. The triple effect absorption processes were modeled and a methodology for optimizing the design was developed. The arrangement and relative sizes of the heat exchangers thermally coupling the upper and lower loops were studied. The thermal coupling involves the upper rectifier, condenser, and absorber rejecting heat to the lower generator. Contrary to other triple effect studies, internal generator heat exchangers were incorporated in both the upper and lower generators and their optimum relative positions were studied. Also, errors of up to 150 percent were shown to result from conventional LMTD and pinch point analysis due to the highly non-linear temperature-enthalpy relationship in the upper condenser. Three configurations for the upper heat exchangers coupling the upper loop to the lower generator were analyzed, and their relative sizes were optimized. The cycles performance was shown to depend on the exit temperature of the lower loop generator, and the COP optimization was demonstrated with respect to this design variable. Operation at air-cooled ambient conditions was investigated. At lower ambient temperatures that are heavily weighted in air conditioning rating standards, the efficiency is very favorable. Equipment development and cost issues need to be addressed. INTRODUCTION Although absorption cycles have a hundred year history, absorption cycle equipment has only a small market compared to vapor compression air conditioning cycles. This is primarily due to the lack of technological progress of absorption equipment relative to vapor compression systems, particularly in air-cooled equipment applications such as small commercial and residential space cooling. Only one 30 year old air-cooled absorption system is currently commercially available, with relatively high operating costs.

Vapor compression cycles require electricity to run the compressor that raises the refrigerants pressure. Absorption cycles accomplish the same task by absorbing the refrigerant into a liquid, pumping the high density liquid mixture up to a higher pressure, and then desorbing the refrigerant by heating. This high fluid density reduces the electric power necessary to operate this system by an order of magnitude, and thereby essentially eliminates the need for construction of an associated electric power plant to meet the brief summer air conditioning load. For residential applications, the economic savings from a better residential electric load factor is not generally passed on to the absorption equipment purchaser. This could change with progressing deregulation of the electric power industry. Absorption air conditioning refrigerants have environmental benefits over vapor compression refrigerants. Over the past decade, it has been accepted that the synthetic refrigerants used in vapor compression systems can have a detrimental effect on the ozone layer. Since 1995, these refrigerants are being replaced with what are believed to be more environmentally-friendly substances, but the new substances are more expensive to produce, and are again synthetic molecules which may produce additional problems. Some studies suggest, in fact, that HRC-134a, for instance, my be decomposed in the troposphere by sunlight to form acid and poisonous substances (Lorentzen, 1995). The refrigerants used in absorption systems are naturally occurring, which should reduce the risk of potential problems. Additionally, if higher-efficiency absorption systems can be developed, carbon emissions can be reduced as well. Furthermore, while vapor compression systems are generally considered more efficient than absorption systems, an examination of all the processes is required to compare total system efficiency. The vapor compression air conditioning thermal efficiency, or COP, is defined as the amount of thermal energy added to the system by the evaporator (air conditioning effect) divided by the amount of electrical energy provided to the compressor, which does not take into consideration the natural fuel used to provide the electrical energy required by the system. When the efficiency of the power plant and the electrical transmission efficiency are included, it can be calculated that

an absorption air conditioning cycle only needs a COP that is about 30% (the thermal efficiency of the power plant) of a vapor compression air conditioning cycles COP to be equally efficient. Currently, standard air-cooled vapor compression air conditioning equipment achieves seasonal COPs of between 3 and 4, which corresponds to an absorption equipment COP of 1.0 to 1.3. Absorption systems require a high temperature heat source and must reject heat to a low temperature heat sink to accomplish desorption and the absorption of the refrigerant. These processes are in addition to the evaporator heat source and the condenser heat sink of the vapor compression refrigeration process. The main source of energy required to operate an absorption system is thermal and not electrical, and is generally provided by combustion of natural gas. In space air conditioning applications, the heat sink is provided by either cool water from a cooling tower, or by ambient air, as in standard vapor compression equipment. The thermal sink is an important aspect of any air conditioning system. At peak cooling load, the design thermal sink temperature condition with a cooling tower system is typically 30C. This corresponds to a design outside wet bulb temperature of 25C on a humid summer day with an outdoor dry bulb air temperature of 35C. Cooling towers increase the system size and require considerable water quality maintenance. This makes cooling towers impractical for residential and small commercial applications. If the thermal sink is provided by ambient air at the design temperature of 35C, the size of the system is reduced, as well as the maintenance requirement due to the absence of cooling towers. Unfortunately, lithium bromide-water (the most commercially successful working fluid pair for absorption cycles) becomes problematic when used in conjunction with a cooling tower, as it crystallizes at the high absorber pressures resulting from air cooling. An alternate working pair, such as ammonia-water, eliminates this issue in residential and small commercial absorption equipment. AMMONIA WATER ABSORPTION CYCLES The simplest type of absorption cycle is the single stage, or basic, cycle. Unfortunately, air-cooled ammonia-water single stage absorption cycles are only able to produce COPs of approximately 0.5, which are well below the 1.0 to 1.3 range necessary for competition with vapor compression cycle efficiencies, even when the differential cost per BTU for gas and electric power is considered. Both the operating costs and the equipment costs of a single stage absorption cycle are higher than those of a vapor compression cycle, further demonstrating its lack of commercial economic potential. One alternative to the basic cycle is the generator-absorber heat exchange (GAX) cycle. The GAX cycle can achieve efficiencies of 0.8 to 1.0, and has been a major research thrust in the absorption area. Despite this effort, however, commercial development has been problematic. New advanced GAX cycles, which may improve upon the basic GAX cycles performance, are currently under investigation (Rane and Erickson, 1994). This study analyzes the performance characteristics and limitations of another multiple effect cycle. Multiple effect cycles are designed by combining single stage components and cycles. Alefeld and Radermacher (1993) have developed rules for designing absorption refrigeration cycles which specify the minimum number of components necessary to design multiple effect cycles and the different methods of recovering internal heat. When multiple effect

100 x=.99 x=.5

Qcond

Qrect

10 Qabs x=.2

Low Pressure Cycle High Pressure Cycle 1 -0.0038 -0.0034 -0.0030 -0.0026 -0.0022

-1/T

Figure 1. Duhring Plot of Kangaroo Cycle cycles are created, the number of design parameters increases accordingly. Three triple effect cycles are the three-absorber cycle, the threecondenser cycle, and the two-absorber/two-condenser, or kangaroo, cycle. The triple effect ammonia-water cycle was first studied by DeVault and Marsala (1990). However, this early analysis assumed that the upper and lower refrigerant loops contain 100 percent ammonia, which ignores the large temperature glide that exists with even 98-99 percent ammonia. Their work predicts the performance of a triple effect cycle with cooling tower temperature conditions, but no analysis of the coupling heat exchangers, air-cooled potential, or design optimization was performed. Further triple effect studies have also been conducted, such as Garimella et al.s work with ammonia-water and ammonia-sodium thiocyanate solutions (1997). The latter two mixture system adds complexity and sodium thiocyanate would be a new, potentially hazardous fluid in the HVAC industry. Their ammonia-water studies showed the cycles potential for air cooled applications. In addition to the insights gained from that study, the current work investigates the use of internal generator heat exchangers and the large errors introduced by the highly non-linear enthalpy-temperature relationship in the upper condenser heat exchanger, which is ignored in conventional LMTD and pinch point heat exchanger analysis. Triple effect ammonia water cycles are limited by the nature of the ammonia-water mixture. At generator temperatures above about 200C, corrosion becomes a major issue. While retaining a 200C restriction, this study analyzes the potential of a kangaroo type of ammonia-water triple effect cycle under normal summer operating conditions. The kangaroo-type triple effect is so named because it is comprised of a single effect cycle that is driven by heat rejected from a coupled high pressure single effect cycle. The low pressure cycle is considered to be within the pouch of the high pressure cycle, as can be seen on the Duhring plot in Fig. 1. The component diagrams for the individual low and high pressure cycles are displayed in Figs. 2a and 2b, respectively. For this cycle, the heat rejected from the high pressure loop condenser, absorber and rectifier is used to run the low pressure cycle. The heat added at the generator is used to create air conditioning cooling from two evaporators, which can be combined, and to run the low pressure desorber.

Refrigeration Side
Heat Sink

Solution Side 18 Rectif.

Heat Sink

450

17 16
40 11

9
Anal.

13

400

350

10

12

T (K)

15 300 3 4

19
23 PreCooler

39 20 2
24 Heat Sink

Heat Source

21

Upper Interm. Cond. Anal #1 26 46 45 Upper Interm. Anal #2 Abs. 25 44 43 Upper Desorb. Rect. 37 38 3 Absorb.

250

Hxgr.

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.0

x (Ammonia Fraction)

Figure 3. Absorption Process (Constant Pressure)

14 15 7

Evap.

1 5

Analyz.

4 6

In order to determine the states of the mixture at each point, the designer must examine the cycle requirements, or application operating specifications. The cycle requirements can be used to determine mixture properties at several of the state points. Once these properties are known, other properties can be determined from additional cycle constraints. Absorbers As seen in Fig. 2a, an absorber mixes a saturated (or sub-cooled) low concentration liquid (state 15) with a high concentration saturated (or superheated) vapor (state 3). The heat-of-absorption released during the process is rejected to a lower temperature heat sink (stream 6 to 7) until the mixture becomes a saturated liquid of a medium concentration (state 4). At the interface between the liquid and the vapor, equilibrium is assumed. As a condition for equilibrium, the temperature of the vapor and the liquid must be the same. In addition, the chemical potentials of each of the components in the mixture must be equal between the vapor and the liquid phase. It is this last requirement that creates the absorption process, for it requires that the saturation temperatures differ for different concentrations. The absorber properties can be completely specified by three independent properties for two of the three streams, and the conservation of total mass, refrigerant mass, and energy. The amount of energy removed from the solution stream can also be represented as a function of the solution stream mass flow rate and enthalpy through conservation of energy. A representation of the constant pressure absorption process on a temperature-concentration diagram is shown in Fig. 3. From this representation, some restrictions can be deduced which can aid in the iterative numerical solution. For any absorption process, the temperature at state 4 must be less than at state 15, and the concentration at 4 must be greater than at 15. The absorption process is also limited by the temperature sink, which is used for the heat rejection. The lowest temperature to which heat can be rejected becomes an important design parameter. In order for heat to flow from the solution streams to the temperature sink represented by states 6 to 7, the temperature of state 4 must be higher than that of state 6 and the temperature of state 15 must be higher than that of state 7. The temperature of state 6 is an important design parameter. It will normally be specified as the low temperature heat sink end of any absorption cycle, and is usually limited by outdoor air temperatures or cooling tower water temperatures. Additionally, the temperature of the saturated solution leaving the absorber, state 4, can be specified as a

(a) Lower Loop

11 10
Cond.

46
Intermd. Anal #1

Solution Side 39 Rectif. 43

29 38 37 30
Anal.

Heat

Source

45

40
PC

Lower 12 Desorb.

32
Heat

31

34

47
Hxgr.

41
Heat Source Evap.

23
Source Desorb.

42

45 46 22 Refrigeration Side

Intermd. Anal #2 Analyz.

44 24
Absorb.

33 36

35

25 26 27 28

(b) Upper Loop Figure 2. Kangaroo Cycle Configuration

MODELING THE TRIPLE EFFECT CYCLE Introduction In this study, the cycle processes were modeled using fundamental fluid property relations (Ibrahim and Klein, 1993) and mass and energy conservation. The numerous resulting transcendental equations were programmed with an iterative equation solver for numerical solutions (Klein and Alvarado, 1996). The relevant design variables are identified and used to optimize the COP. The appropriate heat exchanger sizes were calculated, and alternate loop coupling configurations were evaluated. Finally, the performance of a cycle that uses outdoor air cooling under summer operating conditions was explored and compared to vapor compression cycle performance. A more in-depth analysis of this triple-effect cycle can be found in Jacob (1997).

function of the sink streams low temperature. The method of temperature specification used here is the pinch point method of heat exchanger analysis. The concentration of the refrigerant entering the absorber is another specified parameter. The concentration of the refrigerant mixture should be as near to pure refrigerant as possible, since the evaporator heat addition, heat rejection and air conditioning capacity all increase with higher refrigerant side mixture concentration. This concentration is either specified by the designer or is the result of the rectifier and heat transfer restrictions. The absorber pressure is assumed to be constant for all streams and is also a specified design parameter. This assumption is based on a first-order model which models only the processes that contribute the largest irreversibilities. Thus, the pressure drops that occur due to fluid friction are not considered. This assumption has been shown to yield accurate results (Herold et al., 1995). However, equipment design studies must include the effects of pressure drops on the cycle. Desorbers A desorber, or generator, performs the reverse operation of an absorber. A desorber, as seen in Fig. 2b, heats a medium concentration saturated liquid mixture (state 31) in order to create a high concentration saturated vapor (state 32) and a low concentration saturated liquid (state 33). It performs this operation at a higher pressure than the absorber. The desorber heat source can be either directly fired, where combustion is the source, or it can be indirectly fired, where the heat source is usually steam created from a separate boiler. To model the system, the conservation of total mass, refrigerant mass, and energy can again be written, and the heat input into the system is also represented by the mass flow rate and the enthalpy of the thermal source stream. The desorption process can be either a parallel-flow or a counterflow heat exchange process. A parallel-flow desorber would result in a thermal equilibrium such that T32=T33>T31, while for a counterflow process, as shown, T31=T32<T33. The total heat input required by the desorber in a counterflow process is slightly lower than a parallel-flow process for the same input mass flow. The different thermal equilibrium requirements for the two types of flows effect the output state of the vapor (state 32) without changing the states of the liquid streams. The high temperature limit of the saturated liquid (state 33) leaving the desorber is normally a specified parameter that is dependent on the corrosive nature of the mixture being used in the desorber. For ammonia-water mixtures, this temperature is limited to 200C. Rectifiers The desorber exiting vapor concentration is often not high enough to match the refrigerant side concentration specification. In order to obtain vapor of higher concentration, it is necessary to cool the vapor leaving the desorber. The process is called rectification or reflux cooling. Referring to Fig. 2a, the vapor (state 16) is cooled by a heat sink and the resulting saturated liquid (state 18) and saturated vapor (state 17) are separated. The high concentration saturated vapor is then used in the refrigerant side of the absorption process. The analysis of absorption cycles is often done with respect to the mass flow rate of the refrigerant flow stream. For this analysis, the mass flow rate of the refrigerant at state 18 is set equal to one. Furthermore, thermal equilibrium between the saturated liquid leaving and the vapor entering is assumed (T16=T18).

As mentioned previously, the exiting vapor concentration is usually specified by the designer. This specification replaces the energy equation for this type of heat exchanger. For ammonia-water mixtures, high concentrations are specified to avoid large temperature glides and improve efficiency. The entering temperature of the vapor and the exiting temperature of the liquid, called reflux, are usually taken to be the same as the temperature of the saturated liquid entering the desorber, since the reflux is mixed with this stream before entering the desorber. Analyzers Another piece of equipment used to recover heat in triple-effect absorption cycles is the analyzer. As shown in Fig. 2a, an analyzer has a vapor stream (states 11 to 16) and a liquid stream (states 9 to 10) in counterflow. The conservation equations are the same for both heat addition and removal, and the thermal and vapor/liquid equilibrium requirements for most cases are: T10 = T11 ; T9 = T16 (1)

The thermal equilibrium requirement of the streams at both ends will aid in determining the heat addition or rejection requirements. Use of analyzers greatly enhances the internal heat regeneration ability of absorption cycles. Analyzers also increase the size and cost of construction of absorption equipment. As is the case for all heat recovery equipment, the benefit realized needs to be weighed against the additional cost incurred. Heat Exchangers Counterflow heat exchangers are more effective, so the model represented in this analysis will be of that type. The governing equations are conservation of mass, species, and energy. Often, this will not be enough information to determine the state points completely. If only two of the state points are known, then there will be a number of solutions to the conservation of energy equation. The system must be additionally constrained in order to be completely determined, which can be accomplished in several ways. The effectiveness of the heat exchanger, the total conductance, or the pinch point temperature difference can be specified. The pinch specifies the smallest temperature difference between the two streams, which can occur at either the hot side or cold side of the counterflow heat exchanger. The advantage to using the pinch point method as a constraining equation is that the equation is linear, since the pinch point is added or subtracted from the known temperature side. The temperatures at all the state points are then determined, and the total conductance, UA, can be determined as well. All of the equipment previously modeled can take advantage of the pinch point specification in order to determine the total conductance necessary to achieve the desired heat transfer rate. Condensers and Evaporators In vapor compression cycles, the liquid is fully vaporized in the evaporator delivering the cooling load. However, in ammonia-water absorption cycles with a large temperature glide in the evaporator, a pre-cooler is highly desirable, and the evaporation process takes place in a two stage process. The pre-cooler exchanges heat between the liquid exiting the condenser and the fluid exiting the evaporator. The

Table 1. Triple Effect Design Variables

Design Specified Variables P[1] Low-P loop evaporator pressure Pinch Point low pressure loop evaporator Qu[19]- Low-P loop condenser output m[18]- Low-P refrigerant side flow rate Pinch Point Low-P loop solution hxgr Pinch Point Low-P loop absorber Pinch Point Low-P loop condenser x[18]- Low-P loop refrigerant T[12] - Low-P loop desorber temp. Qu[15]- Weak soln Low-P loop P[22]- High-P loop evaporator pressure Directly Affected Variables P[2],P[7],P[10] T[1] P[9],P[8],P[3],P[4],P[5], P[6] m[9],m[10] T[5] or T[6] T[2] T[9] x[19], x[20],x[21],x[1] x[12],x[13],x[14],x[15] T[15],h[15],h[14],h[13],T[13] P[23],P[24],P[25],P[15], P[26], P[42] Pinch point high pressure loop evaporator T[22] Qu[40]- High-P loop condenser output P[40]-high pressure Pinch Point High-P loop solution hxgr T[28] or T[34] Pinch Point High-P loop absorber T[26] Pinch Point High-P loop condenser T[40] x[39]- High-P loop refrigerant concentration x[40],x[41],x[22],x[23] T[33] - High-P loop desorber temperature x[33] Qu[36] - Weak soln High-P loop state T[36],h[36],h[35],T[35]

1.324 Evaporator Pressure P=4.5 1.318 P=4.55 P=4.6 1.312

C OP
1.306 1.300 356 360 364

368

Lower D esorber Exit Tem perature T 12 (K)

Figure 4. COP vs. Lower Desorber Temperature the condenser, rectifier and absorber to the lower loop desorber. The lower loop generator is modeled as two intermediate analyzers situated between the lower loop desorber and its internal heat exchanger. An additional heat exchanger is shown on the strong solution stream. There are 19 designer-specified variables, as listed in Table 1. The mass flow rate of the refrigerant on the upper loop is not a design variable, as it is in the lower loop. This is the result of requiring that the heat required to drive the lower loop desorber be equal to the total heat rejected from the upper loop. Designation of the refrigerant mass flow rate is replaced by this heat transfer constraint. Some of these design variables are additionally constrained by the application of the cycle (air conditioning) or physical limits. Higher COPs are achieved with higher desorber exit temperatures, but the upper loop desorber temperature is constrained to 200C by the maximum temperature of an ammonia-water mixture that can be achieved without incurring undue corrosion problems. The refrigerant concentration in the refrigeration loop should be as high as possible, as the increased concentration reduces the temperature glide in the evaporator and raises the evaporator/absorber pressure, which maximizes the COP. With the use of the pre-cooler as shown in Fig. 2b and a fixed temperature heat sink for the condenser, there is no benefit in sub-cooling within the condenser. Therefore, zero subcooling is specified in the upper loop condenser. The only design variables left for the upper loop are the pinch points at the high pressure cycle absorber and condenser, the solution heat exchanger pinches, the pre-cooler heat exchanger pinches, and the state of the weak solution entering the absorber (relative to saturation). All pinch points for the heat exchangers are specified at 5C. The saturation state of the weak solution entering the absorber is restricted to a saturated liquid. The parameters that remain are the lower desorber exit temperature and evaporator pressure. These operating design variables can be determined by maximizing the cycle COP. The lower desorber temperature effects the single stage COP of the upper loop and lower loop in opposing ways. A higher temperature increases the COP of the lower loop, while decreasing it for the upper loop. Varying the evaporator pressure varies the exit quality from the load carrying evaporator. A lower pressure increases the percent of liquid evaporated in the load carrying evaporator, but decreases the absorber pressure that thereby reduces the ammonia flow pumped by the absorber. These trade-offs require a two-parameter optimization. The plot of the triple effect cycle COP versus the lower desorber temperature

exit from the external load-carrying evaporator may contain liquid, so the evaporation process is completed in the pre-cooler. The condenser heat rejection stream is air, if the system is aircooled, or water, if the system has a cooling tower, and the heat addition stream in the evaporator is usually chilled water, which carries the space cooling load between the evaporator and inside air handler heat exchanger. These streams, though external, impose design criteria on the operation of the absorption cycle. DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OF THE CYCLE External Cycle Constraints Space cooling is the application considered in this study for the ammonia-water triple effect cycle. This dictates the condenser and absorber heat sink and the evaporator external heat source. In direct expansion air conditioning applications, the evaporator would exchanger heat directly with the indoor air. However, it is normal practice with ammonia refrigerant systems to keep the ammonia outside the building space. This requires a chilled water loop between the evaporator and indoor air. For dehumidification purposes, the chilled water leaving the evaporator is generally specified at 7C to 10C. For this study, it was set at 7C in all cases. In water tower cooled air conditioning applications, the nominal water temperature available to the cycle from the tower for the condenser and absorber heat sink is taken to be 30C. In air-cooled applications, the nominal design ambient inlet air temperature for the condenser and absorber heat sink is taken at 35C. The mass flow of these external streams was taken to yield a 5C temperature rise or drop. Design Parameters The high pressure cycle of the triple effect cycle is identical in equipment configuration to a single effect cycle. There are 21 state points that include a pre-cooler, rectifier, and internal heat exchangers. The state points for the high pressure cycle are labeled in Fig. 2b. The upper loop is coupled to the lower loop by the rejection of heat from

1 .3 6 0

3 8 0 .0

1 .3 5 0
3 7 0 .0

COP

1 .3 4 0

T (K )

3 6 0 .0

1 .3 3 0
3 5 0 .0

1 .3 2 0
0 .0 0 0 .2 0 0 .4 0 0 .6 0 0 .8 0 1 .0 0

0 .2 0

0 .3 0

0 .4 0

0 .5 0

Q - H e a t T ra n s fe rre d

U A c o n d /U A to ta l

Figure 5. COP vs. UAcond/UAtotal

460 440 420 Upper Loop Rectifier

Figure 7. Heat Transfer Profile Across Upper Loop Condenser-Lower Loop Generator Table 2. Optimal Pinch Point Specification
LMTD/Pinch Point UA 30.27 117.754 9.157 Discretized UA 77.183 106.113 7.506 % Difference 254% -10% -18.1%

T (K)

400 380 Internal Hxgr 340 0.0 Upper Cond. Upper Loop Absorber

Condenser - Analyzer Absorber - Analyzer Rectifier - Desorber

Table 3. Optimal UA Specification

Optimized Ratio UA 51.555 95.758 9.868 Discretized UA 77.376 84.687 7.988 % Difference 150% -11.6% -19.1%

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Q - Heat Transferred

Condenser - Analyzer Absorber - Analyzer Rectifier - Desorber

Figure 6. Heat Transfer Profile Across Lower Generator for several evaporator pressures is shown in Fig. 4, assuming a 30C cooling tower heat sink. It can be seen from this graph that the maximum COP occurs at a pressure of 4.55 bars and a lower desorber temperature of 362.5 K. Heat Exchanger Sizing Once the lower desorber temperature and evaporator pressure were optimized, other design parameters were examined to see if additional improvements can be made. Pinch point specifications set the size of the heat exchangers. Reducing the pinch points for these heat exchangers will result in better performance of the cycle, but will also increase the relative size of these heat exchangers. The total relative heat exchanger size of the lower loop desorber, which can be fixed, is the sum of the relative sizes of the desorber and the intermediate analyzers used to receive the heat from the upper loop absorber and condenser. The pinch point specifications for the intermediate analyzers can be replaced by the total size of the lower loop desorber and the ratio of the size of one of the components to this total size. The size of one of the heat exchangers can then be varied to determine the optimum distribution of the heat exchangers sizes. It is assumed that since the UA of the lower loop generator is not changed, the cost of the heat exchangers will not be affected by this change in the heat exchanger distribution. This assumption should be examined further in a detailed heat exchanger design cost study. The conventional LMTD-UA method of heat exchanger analysis was used. The result is shown if Fig. 5. With the optimum UA distribution, a 3% increase in performance is achieved over the UA distribution resulting from the fixed 5C pinch point specification without a net increase in initial cost. However, this LMTD method of analysis has questionable accuracy, as it assumes a linear enthalpy versus temperature relationship (Schaefer and Shelton, 1998). This assumption is valid for the analyzers, but is invalid for the condenser. It was assumed that the heat exchange profile in the lower generator is linear, as shown in Fig. 6, but these profiles, in actuality, can be highly non-linear. A representative profile for the heat exchange across the coupled heat exchangers with the pinch points specified is shown in Fig. 7. For this temperature profile, the sum of the UAs calculated using a discretization method is more than twice that calculated using the LMTD. A comparison of the UAs calculated for the fixed 5C pinch condition using the LMTD method versus the discretized method is presented in Table 2. Due to the large errors noted, the coupling heat exchanger distribution optimization was carried out using the heat exchanger discretization method. Comparison of the optimum ratio for the LMTD analysis versus the discretization analysis is presented in Table 3. Loop Configuration Next, the optimum order with which the heat from the upper loop is rejected to the lower loop (Fig. 2a) can be examined. For the base case shown in Fig. 2b, the condenser is assumed to transfer its waste heat first, then the absorber, followed by the rectifier. The upper loop rectifier-to-lower loop desorber heat exchanger is at the highest temperature location in the upper loop, and should therefore reject heat to the highest temperature in the lower loop. The relative

17 8 40 Upper Loop Condenser 39 13 Analyzer Upper Loop Absorber 24 23 26 Upper Loop Absorber 24 25 44 Upper Loop Rectifier 37 38 43 Upper Loop Rectifier 12 37 38 46 45 39 25 16

17 40 Upper Loop Condenser 23 26 16

Table 4. Comparison of Three Upper Loop Configurations

8

Intermediate Analyzer #1 11 10

Intermediate Analyzer #1 11 10

Pevap (Bars) Config. #1 1.3760 4.55 Config. #2 1.3868 4.55 Config. #3 1.3968 4.55

COP

T12 (K) 361 363 361

UAtotal UAint. HX (kw/K) 205.29 8.609 205.29 14.07 205.29 70.54

PPeak (Bars) 36.67 36.01 38.79

Intermediate Analyzer #2 46 45 13

Intermediate Analyzer #2

Analyzer

44

43

Desorber

Desorber 12

(a) Configuration #2

(b) Configuration #3

Figure 8. Lower Loop Configurations positions of the three other heat exchangers, the condenser-analyzer, absorber-analyzer, and lower loop desorber internal heat exchanger can be altered to attempt to increase the COP. Two alternate configurations for the location of the generator internal heat exchanger are shown in Figs. 8a and 8b. The optimized COP and other relevant cycle parameters are shown in Table 4 for the three configurations. Additionally, the total conductance (UA) of the coupling heat exchangers was set to the value calculated for configuration #3 with the 5C pinch point specification. This configuration was chosen to set the total UA because it produces the highest value of the three configurations. The COP was optimized for each configuration with respect to the evaporator pressure, lower desorber exit temperature and the optimum proportion of heat exchanger area in the coupled desorber. The best results were obtained for configuration #2. Although the COP of configuration #2 is lower than that of configuration #3, the internal heat exchanger on the coupled desorber increased in size significantly for configuration #3, which caused the higher COP. The increase in COP is directly related to the pinch between the cold side of the coupled upper loop condenser and lower loop desorber analyzer. As the temperature at the cold side of the upper loop condenser decreases, the pressure in the upper loop also decreases. The lower pressure results in reduced heat addition to the upper loop desorber. Air Cooled Operating Conditions The triple effect cycle analysis so far has utilized a low temperature sink of 30C. This temperature is consistent with cooling tower temperatures. If the cycle uses outside air rather than water from a cooling tower, the temperature of the cooling fluid of the lower loop condenser and absorber is increased. This temperature must correspond to a value that would be consistent with a hot summer day. For this study, a temperature of 35C (95F) is the desired target temperature. The internal heat exchanger configuration #3 was used for the air-cooled cycle for its higher COP. However, configurations 2 or 3 could be advantageous due to their lower upper loop pressures.

As the air temperature is raised, the difference in concentration between the weak solution and the strong solution becomes very small. This trend is more pronounced in the upper loop. The minimum concentration difference is related to the pinch of the solution heat exchanger. The concentration of the strong solution decreases with increasing ambient air heat sink temperature, causing a corresponding increase in the mass flow rates of both streams and an increase in the heat transfer rate through the solution heat exchangers. Operation is not possible when the pinch point specification can no longer be met unless the pinch point is lowered. This limiting ambient air temperature was 33C (91F). For configuration #2, the minimum pinch must be lowered at a thermal sink temperature of 32C (90F). However, it should be noted that the lower exit generator temperature, T12, was held fixed and the 5C pinch between the ambient air thermal sink and the lower loop absorber and condenser was specified. These can be varied as design parameters. In order to obtain solutions for operating conditions with 95F air, the pinch points for the thermal sink were lowered from the original specification of 5C to 3C, a physically unrealistic condition. This causes the solution heat exchangers for the air-cooled cycle to increase in size by more than 400%, but allows operation of the triple effect with a nominal peak design temperature of 35C (95F) ambient air. Also of interest is how the cycle operates at cooler ambient conditions. The performance of the triple effect cycle increases significantly with lower thermal sink temperatures. With a 3C pinch on the lower loop condenser and absorber, the COP for varying ambient air temperature is shown in Fig. 9. The COP rises from 1.15 to 1.55 when the ambient air temperature drops from 35C (95F) to 28C (82F). According to the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institutes standards, air conditioning systems are run at 35C peak design conditions approximately 1% of the time (ANSI/ARI 210/240, 1989). Therefore, the overall operational efficiency of the triple effect cycle appears to be capable of matching the overall system efficiency of a vapor compression cycle. However, at the higher ambient temperatures experienced in some regions of the country, it would need to convert to a single stage cycle. CONCLUSIONS Development of air-cooled absorption cycles appropriate for residential and small commercial air conditioning applications has been problematic. Commercially successful lithium bromide-water systems currently need cooling towers that are not appropriate for small applications. Ammonia-water appears to be the most commercially-viable absorption working fluid. The only air-cooled absorption air conditioning technologies available are single stage ammonia-water systems with a cycle COP approximately 0.6, and with a complete system COP, including combustion vent losses, of about 0.5. In the mid-1980s, the generator-absorber-heat exchanger cycle was felt to hold commercial promise. However, after about 15 years of development activity, technology obstacles to commercialization still

1.50 1.40

to be addressed, and the cycles high outdoor air temperature limitations need to be further investigated. REFERENCES Alefeld, G., and Radermacher, R., 1993, Heat Conversion Systems, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. ANSI/ARI 210/240, 1989, Standard for Unitary AirConditioning and Air Source Heat Pump Equipment, AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute, Arlington, Virginia. DeVault, R. C., and Marsala, J., 1990, Ammonia-Water TripleEffect Absorption Cycle, ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 96, No. 1. Rane, M. V., and Erickson, D. C., 1994, Advanced Absorption Cycle: Vapor Exchange GAX, International Absorption Heat Pump Conference, ASME, AES-Vol. 31, pp. 25-32. Garimella, S., Lacy, D., and Stout, R. E., 1997, SpaceConditioning Using Triple-Effect Absorption Heat Pumps, Applied Thermal Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 12, pp. 1183-1197. Grossman, G., 1994, Modular and Flexible Simulation of Advanced Absorption Systems, International Absorption Heat Pump Conference, ASME, AES-Vol. 31, pp. 345-351. Gyftopoulos, E. P., and Beretta, G. P., 1991, Thermodynamics: Foundations and Applications, Macmillan Publishing Co., New York. Herold, K. E., Radermacher, R., and Klein, S. A., 1996, Absorption Chillers and Heat Pumps, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, p. 46. Ibrahim, O. M., and Klein, S. A., 1993, Thermodynamic Properties of Ammonia-Water Mixtures, ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp. 1495-1502. Ivester, D. N., and Shelton, S. V., 1994, Varying Heat Exchange Parameters in the Triple Effect Cycle, International Absorption Heat Pump Conference, ASME, AES-Vol. 31, pp. 243-250. Jacob, D., 1997, Analytical Analysis of Absorption Cycles, M.S. Thesis, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. Klein, S. A., and Alvarado, F. L., 1996, Engineering Equation Solver, F-Chart Software, Middleton, Wisconsin. Lorentzen, G., 1995, The Use of Natural Refrigerants: A Complete Solution to the CFC/HCFC Predicament, International Journal of Refrigeration, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 190-194. Schaefer, L. A., and Shelton, S. V., 1998, Heat Exchanger Mean Temperature Differences for Refrigerant Mixtures, Proceedings of the ASME Advanced Energy Systems Division, AES-Vol. 38, pp. 383-389.

COP

1.30 1.20 1.10 302

304

306

308

Ambient Air Temperature (K)

Figure 9. COP vs. Ambient Air Temperature exist. The purpose of this study was to investigate the triple effect ammonia-water cycle as a potential air-cooled cycle for air conditioning. While the cycle itself was shown to be viable, further studies should address equipment and commercialization issues such as pumps, corrosion, and cost. Modeling and optimization of the cycle and heat exchangers for this application revealed following design conclusions. (1) Analysis showed there is an optimum evaporator pressure of 4.55 bar for producing 45C chilled water with a 5C pinch point. (2) There is also an optimum temperature at which the lower loop generator should operate. This results from the tradeoff of the upper loop COP and the lower loop COP, which combine to give the total cycle COP. The optimum temperature for the case studied was about 90C. (3) An optimization of the configuration and distribution of coupling heat exchanger conductance (UA) demonstrated the maximum COP was obtained with the upper loop heat exchangers rejecting heat to the lower loop generator in a rectifier-internal desorber heat exchanger-absorbercondenser sequence. (4) The heat exchanger LMTD method was shown to produce very large errors in calculating the required condenser conductance (UA). Therefore, it was necessary to use a heat exchanger discretization method to calculate the performance of the heat exchangers. For the constraints taken, analysis of the ammonia-water triple effect cycle in air-cooled air conditioner applications rather than water tower cooled applications showed that the cycle would not operate at a 35C (95F) outdoor air temperature condition with 5C heat exchanger pinch points and produce 7C (45F) chilled water. The COP of the air-cooled cycle is favorable at 1.15 and rises to 1.55 as the outdoor air temperature drops from 35C to 28C. The HVAC industry seasonal rating method for air-cooled vapor compression air conditioners assumes that over 99 percent of the cooling energy is required below 35C dry bulb weather conditions, and that the energy weighted average outdoor temperature for air conditioning is 28C (82F). With this government mandated and industry accepted rating method for air conditioning, the air-cooled triple effect ammonia-water cycle efficiency could have a greater total energy conversion efficiency than comparable electric driven vapor compression systems. However, equipment development issues need